SAIIER 2021:Citizens' Assembly Pilot

Kailash Youth Residency		Increasing Water Literacy in Auroville
Entity::Citizens' Assembly pilot Author::Suryamayi, Anshul and Lesley

The purpose of this project was to ascertain whether the Citizens’ Assembly model – already trialled in other parts of the world – could improve collective decision-making processes in Auroville. Under this overarching aim, we aimed to see if the model could:

• Engage a wider representation of community members than in current participatory governance processes (such as General Meetings and the Selection Process);
• Build capacity in people that would support them to participate more in such processes;
• Help realise Auroville’s ideals of human unity and unending education within such decision-making processes.

A secondary purpose, specific to this pilot project and its chosen topic of ‘water’, was to develop a Water Vision for Auroville. The pilot aimed to determine whether randomly selected participants could – with supportive capacity-building – consider a chosen topic from many angles, and develop recommendations as a group. The resulting Water Vision suggests this is possible.

Participants in this project included:

• 27 Aurovilians and Newcomers who were ‘randomly selected’ from Auroville’s Master List to be participants to consider the topic of water in Auroville;
• 30 water players/experts from Auroville;
• Facilitation team and organising team (an additional 15 Aurovilians).

Description of project:

Before embarking on the pilot, the Citizens Assembly team consulted the wider Auroville community, and after consideration of the many suggested topics against key criteria for a Citizens’ Assembly process, ultimately chose the topic of ‘water’. The team gained buy-in from all the ‘water players’ in Auroville, and a goal was set to create a water vision for the community.

The group of 27 randomly selected participants met for eight sessions over the three-month period Oct 2020 – Jan 2021. Supported by a well-planned facilitation process, they considered the ideas put forward by Auroville’s various water players in pre-recorded video presentations. (In-person presentations were avoided due to Covid restrictions.) The perspectives of 30 water players were presented, across different themes (i.e. integrated water management, water quality & water qualities, etc.). The participants also took part in facilitated discussions, Q&A sessions, panel discussions, small group interactions, and other activities. The sessions also aimed to develop their capacity-building around decision-making, including active listening, and recognition of one’s own personal biases and biased information.

Following in-depth consideration of all issues relating to water in Auroville, the participants developed a Water Vision for Auroville, with suggestions for implementation. These outcomes have subsequently been presented to the water players, various working groups in Auroville, and the wider Auroville community. They have been widely accepted and endorsed by all these groups, and an implementation team made up of Citizens’ Assembly participants, water players and organizers has been formed.

This entire process was undertaken as an action research project, guided by the key question: “To what extent can the Citizens’ Assembly model support capacity-building and participation in collective decision-making processes in Auroville, towards realising its ideals of human unity and unending education within these?” Our goal was to evaluate whether, how, and to what extent the key features of the Citizens’ Assembly model are facilitative of constructive collective decision-making in Auroville, and whether they could be applied in future in our community processes. To that end we evaluated the following key aspects of this collective decision-making process:

• Participation – Was there participation from a wide range of community members, representative of Auroville’s diversity? What were reasons/barriers for participation, and what insights can this offer for other community processes to be more inclusive and representative? Was the use of simultaneous translation feasible and effective in encouraging participation from non-native English speakers?
• Capacity-building – Did the Citizens’ Assembly model build capacity in participants for collectively and harmoniously addressing a community challenge? Did it build capacity to hold different viewpoints in a non-polarizing way? Did it build trust and understanding between a diverse grouping of community members? Did it build trust for collective processes in the community at large?
• Education – Was the presentation and deliberation of different perspectives effective in educating a random group of community members on a complex topic with the aim of making informed recommendations? Was the Citizens’ Assembly effective in increasing community awareness around the topic?
• Process – Was the process seen as valuable by participants, the broader community, and Working Groups? What elements of the process design were key to achieving this, where did it fall short and why?
• Outcome – Were participants satisfied with the outcome (a water vision for Auroville, and suggestions for its implementation)? Was the outcome perceived to be valid and implementable by the water players? Was the outcome perceived to be valid and implementable by Working Groups & the community at large?

To answer these questions we analysed data (60 responses) of the community members who were randomly selected – those who chose to attend or not, or dropped out, and their reasons. Participants completed questionnaires before, during and after the assembly, and presenters (water players) completed questionnaires after their presentations (video-recorded interviews) and interaction with the participants, and after being presented with the outcome. Observers (members of the organizing team) completed surveys at the end of each session, and the facilitation and advisory teams had focus group sessions after the completion of the process.

Five working groups (the Working Committee, Funds and Assets Management Committee, Town Development Council – l’Avenir d’Auroville, Budget Coordination Committee, and Entry Board) as well as the Resident’s Assembly Service (RAS) participated in focus group feedback sessions, in the format of a presentation followed by an open discussion held by CA team members, after which 10 members returned a questionnaire. Community members (42 responses) also filled out feedback forms after community presentations of the process and outcomes in different settings.

A documentary video was filmed with responses from participants before, during, and after the process and interviews with the Citizens’ Assembly team members.

Outcomes:

Two key outcomes were created:

• A Water Vision for Auroville, crafted by residents, which cuts through the division amongst water players. The vision lays out the common ground concerning water in Auroville, and offers a cohesive way forward with suggestions for implementation.
• A pilot of a new model for collective decision-making processes in Auroville. This model has been trialed elsewhere in the world and found to be particularly effective in helping communities come to a decision about highly contentious topics. Our pilot demonstrates that this model can transcend the crippling challenges within Auroville’s current collective decision-making culture and processes. The model gave residents a stake in shaping a water vision. The pilot illustrates that this model can more effectively engage a wider representation of community members than current participatory governance processes (such as General Meetings and the Selection Process).

There are three main groups who benefitted:

• The participants, who learnt capacity building and decision-making skills, and who were given a meaningful stake in a vital collective decision-making process.
• The Water Players, who were – at the end of the assembly process – presented with a vision (and suggestions for implementation) that charts a way forward in which all water players and their expertise can be included.
• The whole of Auroville. The success of this pilot demonstrates how the ideals of human unity and unending education can be realized through a supported and well-considered collective decision-making process. As the skills and capacities learnt by the participants disseminate through the community, we expect they will help build a more conscious and mature collective, something which we feel is essential to the project of Auroville, and urgent to address given the prevalence of dysfunctional and divisive dynamics in many of our collective forums.

Reflections:

Our goal was to trial an alternative model to get Aurovilians re-engaged in collective decision-making culture and processes. The long-standing problems regarding poor engagement of the majority of Auroville’s population include: lack of diversity in participants; lack of understanding of the challenges the community faces; and lack of constructive communication skills which often leads to hostile and polarized dynamics in deliberations. We also felt that this model also had good potential to support Auroville’s key ideals of human unity and unending education.

The topic of water was decided after consultation with the wider Auroville community. 27 topics were originally nominated and assessed with a particular criteria. Most of the participants were seldom active in community decision-making processes predominantly due to lack of time, but they also felt these other forums were not a safe space in which to interact, or they lacked trust in these processes.

[ ]

Fig. 1: Participants’ response to “how often do you attend community meetings?”

27 participants agreed to move forward with the process after a hiatus due to Covid. Significant efforts were made to make the process fully accessible to Tamil speakers by providing dubbing and translations, and to support all participants as needed (for example, with child care).

Following extensive debriefing between the core team and facilitators, here are some of our core insights to make other community processes more inclusive and representative:

• Community processes should strive to be efficient in terms of time (a key barrier to participation was lack of time).
• Encourage community members’ places of work to grant them leave to participate.
• Provide budgeted child care for parents to be able to participate.
• Provide translation to those who need it.
• Favour small group discussions to enable a majority of participants to express themselves and be heard.
• Develop ‘ground rules’ for the Citizens’ Assembly that come from the participants for a safe and respectful process.

The Water Players themselves appreciated the fact that such a wide selection of perspectives were included in a video interview format that offered a low time-investment way for water players to participate (compared to having to prepare and present a whole presentation) and which supported less vocal players to engage.

Capacity Building:

Great effort was put into building the capacities and skills of participants. This included an array of learning exercises that enabled participants to become more conscious of the importance of listening, and aware of their biases (conscious and unconscious). Participants gave significant value to the building of their skills around bias and listening (an average score of 4.4 /5 in their feedback). They believed these new skills/capacities would help them approach community challenges and participate in collective processes in Auroville differently. Participants also noted how this capacity-building, coupled with the small group discussion format, enabled them to consider other people’s points of view and grow in their understanding of others, and how this enabled them to connect closely with Auroville’s key values and allow polarities to dissolve.

• “It’s our work to become aware of our bias and watch how it may influence our thinking, communication and decision-making.”
• “I learnt that one has to shut off his/her mind to really truly listen.”
• “It spotlighted in a very neutral/safe way our tendencies of how we react when faced with so many different opinions...”

Education and learning:

Participants noted that their knowledge about the water situation in Auroville significantly increased by the time the Citizens’ Assembly finished, from 2.6 (recorded at the beginning of the assembly) to 4.1 (recorded at the end of the assembly) out of a maximum score of 5. This demonstrates that the presentation of different perspectives and group discussions was effective in educating the group on the complex topic of water, and that they were, at the end of this process, able to make informed recommendations.

Process:

When asked what was the most rewarding part of the assembly, participants foregrounded the process, particularly the way in which the discussions enabled them to consider other people’s points of view, and as a consequence, how their understanding of others grew. Respondents often emphasised how this enabled them to connect closely with Auroville’s key values.

Participants were more specifically very positive about the small discussion group format (which averaged a 4.3 /5 rating), which they felt enabled a depth of exploration of the topic (4.1 /5), and which helped the process of making recommendations for the vision and its implementation (4.4 /5). Many noted the quality of facilitation, and how this supported their participation.

• “Excellent facilitation.”
• “The safe space/facilitation was great.”
• “[The most rewarding part was] To be able to change my mind, thanks to great facilitation.”

What worked well in the sessions:

After gathering all the feedback, the top three things that worked well are:

• The content put together by the team.
• The facilitation that guided the participants gently through this experience.
• The dynamics of the core team (diversity, sharing and collaboration) that motivated everyone to give their best and made the process enjoyable.

Other things that worked well:

• Support offered to the participants.
• Having multiple perspectives through video presentations.
• Trust and engagement of participants in the process, which was a result of the facilitation and support provided by the team.

Fig. 2: Core team feedback on “what worked well / the most rewarding parts of the CA pilot”

• “This engagement I feel is quite crucial for the success of future CAs. There was also a lot of expertise in the team that contributed to the successful planning and implementation of the pilot.” (core team member)
• “It was good to have multiple dedicated teams: advisory, facilitation, participant support, documentation, budget, evaluation. Also the balance struck between energisers, creative/visioning activities, and content to be delivered. I think the facilitation team should train other facilitators who wish to support CA processes in future.” (core team member)

Challenges of the process:

The core team observed the main challenge in the assembly was synthesising the final output in the last two sessions into a vision and recommendations. Since this process involved a mental approach of analysis, integration and prioritization of information, the core team felt that a few participants may have not been able to participate fully in this step. Their recommendations for future assemblies are to include other forms of expressing, sharing and recording ideas. Some of the core team felt uncomfortable with the voting and rating system at the end, as they felt that richness of information was lost. Some core team members thought that participants could have been encouraged more to suggest implementation ideas.

Other challenges expressed by the core team were: not having large whole group interactions (due to COVID constraints); no interactions between the water players and the participants (which were optional); and a dropout of Tamil participants despite translation efforts. The Water Players also expressed that they would have liked to have more time for interaction with the participants.

Outcomes:

Participants were generally positive or very positive about the vision and recommendations created by the assembly (6 people very positive; 8 positive; 3 neutral).

Fig. 3: Participant rating on the outcomes (vision & recommendations for implementation) of the assembly

While all participants were very hopeful about the potential for the new water vision to create positive change in Auroville, almost ¾ of them expressed concern about its implementation – particularly regarding who would take responsibility for the vision’s implementation. In terms of what did not work well, participants gave diverse answers, the most common of which was a concern about the need to bring more concreteness to the vision and the ways in which it can be implemented.

The water players rated the usefulness of the process at 4.1 /5 and the usefulness of the outcomes at 3.3 /5. Many of the water players expressed their surprise at the extensive scope of both the vision and the suggestions for implementation considering that the participants were not ‘water experts’. While the water players appreciated the water vision outcome (rated 4.4 /5), they seemed to have wanted more specific suggestions in the implementation recommendations (2.2 /5) given by the participants. This may be due to a difference in expectations from the water players. (The objectives of the assembly were to come up with a vision and suggestions on steps for ensuring the vision could be implemented. It was not intended to provide a pathway for materialising the recommendations as it was felt this next step would need to be developed by the water players).

The lack of a clear body to take on this work was one of the main areas discussed by the assembly members and several suggestions were made on how this gap could be addressed.

• “I like how the vision has been clarified and think this is probably the most important outcome, although... I think implementation is the weak point because there is no clear ‘place’ for such information to go. I feel that someone/small group needs to be responsible for holding this vision…” (participant)

Community feedback:

The process drew a lot of attention and support from the community, and the outcomes were presented to them. We surveyed 42 community respondents (who attended the summary presentations and watched the final video “Making of the Citizens’ Assembly”). The community commended the process for bringing different perspectives to the table and crafting a vision after careful deliberations. On other points, the community gave mixed feedback. The average rating from the community for Vision was 3.7/5, and for Implementation Guidelines was also 3.7/5. However, the community had expectations on implementing the outcomes (which was never the goal of the assembly). Many survey responses expressed that they would have liked to see more clarity of way forward in the implementation guidelines and that the outcomes seemed very broad.

The average rating on how much the respondents would like to see the outcomes of the assembly being carried further was 4.5 /5, which demonstrates confidence in and support for the outcomes of the assembly.

• “The process and vision for CA was very clear (and inspiring!). However, the outcome of the process was less clear. Would be helpful to have a clearer sense of these, also clarity on what the next steps forward will be in terms of implementation.”
• “There is a need to show some good ‘real’ outcomes based on the recommendations suggested by the Citizens’ Assembly for the community to develop trust and legitimacy in this approach to decision making.”
• “I would have liked to see more clarity in the implementation points.”

Our research suggests that the CA did raise community awareness on the topic of water, especially through the videos (made accessible on YouTube) and through community screenings. Community members gave an average rating of 2.8 /5, regarding how much they learnt about the water situation in Auroville.

The translation of all video interviews into Tamil has also created a vast resource for education on water within the Tamil speaking community in Auroville and the bioregion. Most water players expressed the usefulness of the process in creating a ‘community level’ vision on water, and the awareness it created for the participants and the community.

The Working Groups were largely positive about the process and outcomes of the CA. Working Group members rated the Citizens’ Assembly as a model for collective decision making 4.1 /5 (on average). On average, Working Group members rated the usefulness of the process for follow up by their respective groups 4 /5. Working Group members rated the Water Vision outcome 4 /5 and the suggestions for implementation 3.9 /5, and the usefulness of these outcomes for follow-up by their respective groups 3.8 /5. The outcomes can therefore be considered to be perceived as valid by Working Groups. However, there were concerns about implementation of collective decision-making processes in general in Auroville:

• “…very important for the decision-making process, could become key elements of the RAD in future.”
• “From the presentation it seems your pilot project went well. I think it could be a good alternative way to make decisions, give advice and work towards ‘unending education’.”
• “Implementation is always the most challenging part of a decision-making process in Auroville so it’s important to see if this actually happens this time.”

Conclusion:

The majority of participants said that they would participate again in a Citizens’ Assembly, if they were selected. (13 out of 17 respondents said ‘Yes’). The overwhelming majority of participants felt they would trust a Citizens’ Assembly process for dealing with other community issues in future.

The primary reason given for this was the ‘random selection’ composition of the assembly, which participants felt removed potential conflict of interest and created a context where all people could express themselves. Many suggested this could become a new model for decision-making in Auroville.

• “…definitely a way of developing a relevant and responsive community.”
• “I think this process could be recognised as ‘undiscussable’ because it is fair and free of conflict of interest.”
• “It is a much better tool than one or two Residents’ Assembly.”
• “YES! This random selection seemed to do the job! Random people, no personal agenda – ONE goal!”

Participants were largely very positive that aspects of the Citizens’ Assembly model could be integrated into other collective decision-making processes in Auroville. Some suggested that it could help with education on complex topics, while others foregrounded the small group discussions as a way to encourage people to speak or to dissolve polarities. A majority recommended using video presentations in future processes, for example, providing videos prior to a General Meeting.

While participants suggested many topics for a future Citizens’ Assembly, the most commonly suggested topic was that of the Master Plan / Galaxy plan / town planning. The second and third most commonly suggested topics were those of examining the ways in which the Working Groups make decisions in Auroville, and the topic of Education.

The working groups also suggested a number of topics for a future Citizens’ Assembly, the most commonly suggested being Economy in Auroville, Selection Process, and Housing.

In all, the feedback received from participants was very positive.

“Thank you for letting me in this process. It really helped me in person to understand what I was doing in Auroville.” “Amazing job, don’t let it be forgotten.” “I felt very touched by the work, love and trust, time and energy put forward by the Citizens’ Assembly team.” “... it’s a wonderful way to depressurise the drive to manifest the city at the expense of human unity. We have the fortune of a relatively small community, an aspiration to govern peacefully and harmoniously, and a bureaucracy that is so far not so entrenched that it is not open to change.”

The Water Players were also enthusiastic about the CA process being used for other community issues (85% supported this idea). When asked which aspects of the CA process they would like to see integrated in the community processes in Auroville, 73% of the water players said ‘all’.

• “I hope you find a way to use this method in Auroville. I have given up on most General Meetings because they have become too political and don't represent the diversity of experience and opinion here. From what I could see the Citizens Assembly does represent diversity.” (Water Player)
• “It felt like we touched or pointed to a next level of community interaction.” (Water Player)

The wider Auroville community was positive about the potential for the Citizens’ Assembly model in Auroville. Community members rated the Citizens’ Assembly as a model for collective decision making at 4.4 /5. 88% of them recommended that the CA model should be used in Auroville again. They rated the aspects of ‘Random selection’ and ‘Education’ as the most interesting and valuable parts of the model. Excerpts from the community feedback:

• “This is a good way to build on the intuitive governance aspect and overcome the polarisation between participatory and hierarchical governance.”
• “The Citizens’ Assembly model could be the answer to some of our structural governance problems in Auroville and help us bring out the best of all of us.”
• “I like the educational part but I am still wondering how CA can help in collective decision making, on problems like economics, Master Plan, HT cable etc.”
• “I feel the next step is that CA should be approved by the Residents' Assembly as a decision making tool for the community.”
• “I would be interested in seeing how the quality of Citizens’ Assembly be maintained (openness and creativity) and not flattened out for utility.”

Working Group and RAS members rated the Citizens’ Assembly as a model for collective decision making 4.1 /5 (on average). They identified (in the evaluation process) the potential of the educational and social aspects of this process for transforming the collective decision-making culture in Auroville to align with its ideals of human unity and unending education. The question “How much would you recommend / like to see a Citizens’ Assembly process used for topics that your group deals with?” was also rated on average 4.1 /5. However, it was suggested by 3 groups that one or more pilots should take place before incorporating it as an additional tool for decision-making by the RA:

• “I see the CA model/process as a useful additional tool for decision-making of certain types of topics . I believe it needs a few more to be completed to build understanding and credibility in the community as well as for groups to gain clarity about how it can be put to best use.”

Based on this overall evaluation the CA team strongly recommends that the Citizens’ Assembly model can be utilised in Auroville for collective decision making and for deliberating on important community issues.